• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Surrendering your sidearm at a traffic stop

kenshin

Regular Member
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
285
Location
Gig Harbor, Washington, USA
imported post

Johnny Law wrote:
TechnoWeenie wrote:
cite?

What case says 'officers can do anything in the name of officer safety that they deem reasonable' ?
My apoligies, I have a rather long document in a different computer (not available at the moment) that explains it in detail. I will post it later today.Officer safety is not based on court cases, nor is itaddressed in aRCW, so I totally understand that it is a hard concept to grasp. Nevertheless, it exists and is upheld in the courts.
If it's upheld in court, then there would be court cases to base it on. However, you say that it's not based on court cases. It's either one or the other. If it is upheld in court and there are court cases, please provide a cite or names of the court cases so we can look them up.

ETA. Beat me to it Techno.
 

antispam540

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2008
Messages
546
Location
Poulsbo, Washington, USA
imported post

5918mike wrote:
I had this very situation happen to me this morning. WSP pulled me over for speeding, came up to the passenger side of my vehicle to get license, insurance, and registration. I gave him the license and insurance from my wallet and I told him the registration was in the glove compartment along with a holstered pistol. He became nervous, reached down from the open window and put his hand on the latch, paused and told me not to make any sudden movements or reach for anything. He opened the glove compartment and first grabbed the firearm, the registration was laying right under it so he then picked that up. Checked the registration and put it back, then asked for CPL, looked it over, gave it back along with my insurance and took my DL and Glock back to his car. He returned with the gun removed from the holster, magazine ejected and the slide locked back. Put it all in the glove compartment and closed it, then handed me my ticket and told me I could reload when I wanted.

So, how do I find out if he ran the serial number?
If he took it back to his car, he ran the serial number. If you want a record of it, you'll have to submit a FOIA request, although they might deny it happened.
 

5918mike

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
44
Location
, ,
imported post

Actually I completely understand them taking the gun back to the car, I'm surprised that other officers I tell don't, a few months ago a Marysville cop gave me a seatbelt ticket and he let me retreive the registration from the glove compartment after I told him that there was a gun in there, never even looked at my CPL and left the gun alone.

I was just wondering how one would even tell they ran the numbers if they did, I am not concerned about it in the least though.
 

antispam540

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2008
Messages
546
Location
Poulsbo, Washington, USA
imported post

I'm going on what I've seen from officers on these and other gun forums - it seems to be pretty much SOP to run the serial on any gun they see, to check whether or not it's stolen. Maybe that's different in this state, or with this particular department or officer. I don't know for 100% sure, absolutely positively that the officer ran this particular serial number, but he *most likely* did, and a FOIA request will have to be filed if you want to know for sure.

I'm not disputing the fact that it's helpful in some situations for officers to be able to temporarily confiscate a firearm, or that it's safer for them, or that they'd really like to do it. I'm disputing their legal right to do it, if I tell them I don't consent.
 

compmanio365

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
2,013
Location
Pierce County, Washington, USA
imported post

NavyLT, I have to completely disagree. Just as I cannot condone an officer disarming an OCer for walking down the street, I cannot condone an officer disarming someone in their car. Unless he has probable cause that I have or am going to commit a crime, he has no reason to disarm me. If he has probable cause, then why hasn't he already charged me with a crime? Cops don't get to take people's weapons just because they want to. They have to reasonably suspect me of something, and then they need to arrest me or let me go.

If I am pulled over, I volunteer nothing. I consent to no search or seizure of my property. If I am searched or have my property seized without consent, that officer can be guaranteed of a long fight ahead of him for his indiscretions. Since officers are no longer working for the people, but against them, treat them as the enemy and don't make their process to violate your rights and remove your freedom any easier than it already is.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

I agree with compmanio on this. I sympathize with the officers fear, but what he did to mike violates the 4th. Unless the officer can remember the serial numbers from a glance or check, he is not supposed to run them , thus defacto registering the gun to mike.
 

Hammer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
448
Location
Skagit Valley, Washington
imported post

WOW! You were there! Or you heard it on the scanner? Why the heck is it so hard to understand that a cop may be nervous about a person at a traffic stop with a weapon. Let me explain something to you: Let's say that there is a felon on the loose with a warrant for his arrest. Let's say that felon gets stopped for busted tail light. At this point the felon might be playing his luck and hoping the cop will just say, dude, your tail light is busted, have a nice day, but instead the cop wants license, insurance and registration and is at the passenger window. Now the felon has a gun in the glovebox that the cop is going to see the minute he opens it up. So, now the felon is going to play his luck again and tell the cop about the presence of the gun and hope the cop is going to be cool and say, OK, thanks for telling me, I'll get the registration. Now, at this point cop walks away from the car, because maybe the car belongs to a buddy of the felon and it didn't come up when the cop ran the plates. Now the felon knows as soon as his license is called in it's going to come back and he is going back to the slammer, so at this point the felon decides it's better to try to get away with shooting the cop than it is to be gauranteed to go back to the slammer. The cop has no idea what situation he is faced with when he comes up for a traffic stop. How hard is it to comprehend that maybe the cop would like to be in control of a gun instead of leaving it in the possession of a complete stranger to the cop at this point? Why do have such a problem with the cop taking the gun with him? Let me put it to you this way, I walk up to a felon on the street and ask him, Wow, that's a nice gun you are carrying, what kind is it? The felon is probably going to tell me, Joe Civilian, it's a Kimber or whatever and that's it. Now, put a uniform on me and the same incident happens. There is greater chance the outcome will be different if a cop does the same thing.
I suggested in an earlier post- what makes confiscating a gun = officer safety. He doesn't know if there is more than one. He doesn't know if the perp is a MMA fighter that will kill him bare-handed. If he is truly afraid for his safety, he ought to be cuffing every jay-walker he encounters.
And as to whether the LEO runs the s/n or not: I have 2 acquaintances that are retired LEO. By their own admission and stories, the law makes no difference to them in the slightest. As long as they don't get caught doing as they please, it's all OK by them. By their testimony, they are the rule, not the exception.
I had to tell them both not to tell me their "war" stories anymore. Theyt make me sick- the constitution is TP to them.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

NavyLT wrote:
We have a right to protect ourselves with our guns. Police have the right to protect themselves from harm during an official detainment or arrest. It's as simple as that. I don't begrudge an officer for exercising his abilities under the law to provide for his own protection.

Actually, we should view taking the one gun and not removing the person from the vehicle to perform a frisk and then causing that person to remain outside of their vehicle during the stop as a sign of trust by the police officer.

Asking me if I have a weapon, taking me at my word that I have only the one, and asking me for that weapon temporarily, during an official detainment and/or arrest such as a traffic stop, is the most courteous way that an officer has and still exercise his legal abilities to provide for his own protection.

cite please......

They don't have the right to throw out the constitution in protecting themselves. Like I said I sympathize with LEO's, but they took the job and all the inherit danger that goes along with it. We have to remember the 2ndA is supposed to be our protection against the government and all of their officials.

Its a sign of distrust if he takes my weapon to his car and illegally runs my serial numbers.
 

compmanio365

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
2,013
Location
Pierce County, Washington, USA
imported post

Please, you are far from convincing in your argument. The police officer is not trying to do me or anyone else a "favor" by taking away my gun. They are violating my rights, plain and simple. And a traffic stop is NOT an arrest. Dunno where you are getting such backwards ideas and information. I am being detained in a traffic stop, but until I get dragged out of the car and cuffed, I'm not under arrest. Therefore, they have no right to take my weapon.

And yes, this "police have a right to be safe" is BS. Police do NOT have a right to be safe, they have a right to be armed and protect themselves like everyone else. But I don't get to take away someone else's weapon to insure my safety, neither does that police officer just because he's there.
 

antispam540

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2008
Messages
546
Location
Poulsbo, Washington, USA
imported post

Where are these "right to protect themselves during a traffic stop" rights defined? What governs how they can protect themselves? What limits it? I keep hearing people say "police have the right to feel safe or protect themselves", but NOBODY has shown me the statute or case law that says so, when, where, or how.
 

antispam540

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2008
Messages
546
Location
Poulsbo, Washington, USA
imported post

That's excellent, halfway there. Now for the part that says "officers detaining someone under arrest can temporarily confiscate firearms."

Bonus points for the part that says "officers can temporarily confiscate firearms EVEN IF the person is NOT under arrest", to cover terry stops and encounters where a person is detained without RAS.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

NavyLT wrote:
antispam540 wrote:
That's excellent, halfway there. Now for the part that says "officers detaining someone under arrest can temporarily confiscate firearms."

Bonus points for the part that says "officers can temporarily confiscate firearms EVEN IF the person is NOT under arrest", to cover terry stops and encounters where a person is detained without RAS.
That is covered under Terry v. Ohio.

There is no right to disarm a person if a person is detained without RAS, such as a mwag call when the only behavior that is occurring is a person who is carrying their gun lawfully.

JohnnyLaw seemed to think differently. Earlier in this thread, across three posts,he said:

Remember that Officer safety is NOTreliant onthe elements ofaTerry stop or RAS. It can be enacted anytime, anywhere, for any reason that the Officer deems it necessary, and yes it does temporarily suspend one's rights...

...although the realm of Officer safety may encompass a Terry stop, it is not always limited only to the guidelines of a Terry stop.

My apoligies, I have a rather long document in a different computer (not available at the moment) that explains it in detail. I will post it later today.Officer safety is not based on court cases, nor is itaddressed in aRCW, so I totally understand that it is a hard concept to grasp. Nevertheless, it exists and is upheld in the courts.

I should like to see the court opinions. It would be new to me.
 

911Boss

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2007
Messages
753
Location
Gone... Nutty as squirrel **** around here
imported post

antispam540 wrote:
That makes more sense. Also, if a traffic stop is an arrest, why do they not read you your miranda rights?
Oh, oh! I can answer this one....


Miranda only applies when custodial arrest is combined with interrogation/questioning for a criminal offense.

You can be arrested and so long as they don't start questioning you, they technically don't ever have to do the Miranda notification.

Remember, most traffic issues are not criminal so unless you are looking at criminal traffic offense such as Neg 1st, Reckelss, or DUI, there is no requirement.
 

antispam540

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2008
Messages
546
Location
Poulsbo, Washington, USA
imported post

Hmm. So even if it's just a traffic stop, the police can search your car and your person and use anything they find as evidence against you in court? If they can't use a serial number obtained through this method, if you volunteer your gun to the officer does that mean you're volunteering to give him the serial number? If people could incriminate themselves that way, perhaps the miranda rights need to be read - of course, the law doesn't say they should, but maybe the law should be changed.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

No they can't search your car, never consent to this. You don't have to volunteer you are carrying a weapon. Matter of fact roll your window down...only enough to hand your drivers liscence and papers out. It has been stressed over and over again....don't ever give out extra information.

I noticed how my question on running of the serial numbers has been glossed over. They do not have the right to take your gun and run the numbers. Me I keep mine in the holster. If they remove it from the holster it violates the 4th.
 

TechnoWeenie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
2,084
Location
, ,
imported post

sudden valley gunner wrote:
No they can't search your car, never consent to this.  You don't have to volunteer you are carrying a weapon. Matter of fact roll your window down...only enough to hand your drivers liscence and papers out.  It has been stressed over and over again....don't ever give out extra information.

I noticed how my question on running of the serial numbers has been glossed over. They do not have the right to take your gun and run the numbers. Me I keep mine in the holster. If they remove it from the holster it violates the 4th.


They can search an area readily accessible to the driver... But not locked compartments..
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

911Boss wrote:
antispam540 wrote:
That makes more sense. Also, if a traffic stop is an arrest, why do they not read you your miranda rights?
SNIP Miranda only applies when custodial arrest is combined with interrogation/questioning for a criminal offense.

You can be arrested and so long as they don't start questioning you, they technically don't ever have to do the Miranda notification.
I'll help with a cite, quote, and link:

To summarize, we hold that, when an individual is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom by the authorities in any significant way and is subjected to questioning, the privilege against self-incrimination is jeopardized. Procedural safeguards must be employed to protect the privilege, and unless other fully effective means are adopted to notify the person of his right of silence and to assure that the exercise of the right will be scrupulously honored, the following measures are required. He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that, if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires. Opportunity to exercise these rights must be afforded to him throughout the interrogation. After such warnings have been given, and such opportunity afforded him, the individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer questions or make a statement. But unless and until such warnings and waiver are demonstrated by the prosecution at trial, no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against him.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0384_0436_ZO.html
 
Top